Honestly, I'd advise that you take a break or lessen the intensity of your studying. I know it sounds counterproductive, but it helps. That's the advice I received, and it worked. Seeing my scores decline was discouraging and made me more anxious to improve. It increased my pressure to perform--making me do worse. It was demoralizing. I was fed up and decided only to review my notes and strategies, and do short focused drills for much less time than I'd been doing. I reviewed old lessons just to keep the fundamentals fresh in my mind. I did this for about 2 weeks before taking the actual LSAT because I didn't want to be fried mentally when taking the test. I scored 8 points higher on the actual LSAT than on my last practice test. Your brain probably needs a little respite to break the plateau. I also think changing your studying environment can help. I always studied at the desk in my room since that's where I'd be taking the exam (which can be helpful), but changing it up sometimes by going to different coffee shops, a university, a library, etc. helped break the monotony and enhance my motivation, energy, and overall productivity. Praying for you! You've got this!

Just submit it if it's ready. Many schools offer the option to indicate when your score will be released and LSAC will send it to them. If the school doesn't have that option just email the admissions office to let them know your score is forthcoming. I think it'll be faster that way.

Sameeee. I think it's because he does a great job breaking down the passage and making concepts tangible or easy to grasp. By the time we evaluate the questions we can get through them with speed and precision. However, on the Practice Tests I'm not able to parse and digest the passage as easily as him so I end up trading accuracy for speed or speed for accuracy. Just need to practice, practice, practice.

You can just highlight the first word after each break to keep the different concepts distinct. You'll be able to highlight on test day so if you're struggling keep it separate mentally and don't want to spend a lot of time on notations, thats a strategy you can use. I don't think it's time consuming.

Need an update lmao 160 preptest as well and I take the October LSAT in 2 weeks.

I think it's wrong because AC D says it's "produced by artists who are themselves members of the aristocratic or middle classes." But in the passage it talks about rich patrons who hired talented artists, so those artists could be of any class with any set of ideals. Even the second condition was that they had to preclude the possibility that artists subverted the patrons views for their own reasons.

Is the flawed reasoning not:

A ‑m→ B ‑m→ C

A ‑m→ C

if you replace "most" with the biggest subset in the superset or in the case of answer choice A, the subset of most injuries in the superset? That's how I spotted A.

Its in the following lesson

Get rid of the answer that claims they disagree on X if only one speaker expresses an opinion on X yet the other speaker is silent on the topic of X. You need to find the answer choice that both speakers have addressed. The parties can't disagree/agree on something that one of the parties haven't even addressed in stimulus. Hope that makes sense!

I mean you could write it out, just depends on if you'll find it more helpful or not. You could do:

(C: consumers)

irrational → expect ben. outweigh cost

not expect ben. outweigh cost → rational

(not expect ben. outweigh cost) C

(/acquire) C → rational

To build that bridge you need to find out how to connect "not expecting the benefits to outweigh the cost" and "consumers who don't bother acquiring such information." The conclusion naturally follows when consumers don't expect the benefits to outweigh the cost, which is answer choice E.

Hope that made sense!

I believe it’s because we identified two conditional indicators in the first sentence. “if” introduced the sufficient condition, and “unless” was located in the necessary condition where we noticed another conditional statement embedded in the necessary condition (embedded conditional). We used Group 3 (negate sufficient) for the “unless” conditional statement and got the following…

The original first sentence: If there are sentient beings on planets outside our solar system, we will not be able to determine this anytime in the near future unless some of these beings are at least as intelligent as humans.

Translate to lawgic: exist -> (less intelligent -> /determine)

{Remember if we don’t want it to be an embedded conditional we can move “less intelligent” and add it to the sufficient condition}

“exist” and “less intelligent” -> /determine

(now we have our simpler conclusion which is just that we can’t determine “this” (referential) anytime in the near future. This makes it easier to do POE and find the right answer!)

Translate back to English: If there are sentient beings on planets outside our solar system and some of these beings are not at least as intelligent as humans are, we will not be able to determine this anytime soon.

I hope this helped!

I believe it's because we identified two conditional indicators in the first sentence. "if" introduced the sufficient condition, and "unless" was located in the necessary condition where we noticed another conditional statement embedded in the necessary condition (embedded conditional). We used Group 3 (negate sufficient) for the "unless" conditional statement and got the following...

The original first sentence: If there are sentient beings on planets outside our solar system, we will not be able to determine this anytime in the near future unless some of these beings are at least as intelligent as humans.

Translate to lawgic: exist -> (less intelligent -> /determine)

{Remember if we don't want it to be an embedded conditional we can move "less intelligent" and add it to the sufficient condition}

"exist" and "less intelligent" -> /determine

(now we have our simpler conclusion which is just that we can't determine "this" (referential) anytime in the near future. This makes it easier to do POE and find the right answer!)

Translate back to English: If there are sentient beings on planets outside our solar system and some of these beings are not at least as intelligent as humans are, we will not be able to determine this anytime soon.

I hope this helped!

Because the sentence already says "cannot survive" and the cannot acts as a negation. So when you negate the sufficient using the group 3 translation, negating the negation makes it cancel out. "//survive" is the same as "survive." so it becomes survive -> carbon. I hope that makes sense!

When I looked it up, I read that most schools start accepting applications at the beginning of September but this video says October. Which is it?